Archive for the ‘MCA’ Category

RPK was not the first person who called MCA ‘running dog ‘. Many Chinese have called MCA by this name in the past. For me, I prefer to call MCA the party that Make Chinese Angry.

MCA: the Malay running dog

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

“Suhakam probes Batu Buruk shooting,” said Charles Ramendran of The Sun. The Sun went on to say:

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has initiated a public inquiry into the discharge of firearms by the police which injured two people during a demonstration in Batu Buruk, Terengganu, on Sept 8.The inquiry will look into whether there was justification for the police to fire several gunshots at the assembly, given the circumstances at that time.Suhakam has appointed three commissioners to conduct the inquiry, headed by Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who will be assisted by Prof Datuk Khoo Kay Kim and Tan Sri Asiah Abu Samah.

In a press conference in Suhakam’s Jalan Raja Laut office today, Muhammad Shafee said the inquiry was proposed after the commission found that there was no specific probe into the shooting, except that it could have been part of the overall police investigations into the assembly and riot.

He said since the incident, the police had charged 12 participants of the assembly in court.

He said there was however no explanation on the shooting from the police’s probe into the incident.

Muhammad Shafee said since Suhakam found no court proceedings were pending on this issue, it decided to pursue it at the commission’s 93rd meeting on Monday (Nov 19).

“This inquiry is solely on the use of firearms on that day and not the assembly itself. Suhakam views the usage of live ammunition at a public assembly with great concern,” he said.

“If there is no justification for the use of live ammunition, then it is a very serious issue. Since we found no court proceedings pending on this issue, we decided on Monday (Nov 12) at the commission’s meeting to pursue it,” he said.

He added that the inquiry will look into how such a violation had occurred, and the administrative directives and procedures that could have led to the incident, among others.

The police had tried to stop a rally organised by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) on Sept 8, calling for electoral reforms. Several people were injured in the melee that ensued and a policeman in plain clothes fired several shots and injured two people.

Bersih submitted a memorandum on Sept 13 asking Suhakam to look into the matter. Suhakam conducted an investigation and decided that although the complaint had its merits, but due to the operation of the law, a panel of inquiry could not be convened to investigate the complaint.

Muhammad Shafee said measures to prevent such incidents from recurring will also be on the list of recommendations at the end of the inquiry.

“The inquiry will be carried out without prejudice to see if there was any breach of human rights in the incident,” he said.

The Star carried the same story but its headline said, “Inquiry into Batu Buruk riot.” And The Star went on to say:

The Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) will hold a public inquiry from Dec 11-15 into allegations about the use of live ammunition during the Sept 8 Batu Buruk riot in Terengganu.Suhakam commissioner Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said the inquiry would be held in Kuala Terengganu and he urged the public to come forward to give information, documents and other evidence pertaining to the incident.He said there has not been an inquiry on the firing of live ammunition to date, with no other court proceedings pending on the issue.

“Suhakam, therefore, found the necessity for a public inquiry to ascertain whether the use of live ammunition by the police during the riot was justified.”

He said the terms of reference of the public inquiry were to inquire about the circumstances of the situation, the justifiability of the police to use live ammunition on the crowd and whether it was a violation of human rights.

Now, note the difference between the two reports.

The Sun headlines: Suhakam probes Batu Buruk shooting

The Star headlines: Inquiry into Batu Buruk riot

While The Sun says that Suhakam wants to probe the shooting, The Star suggests that Suhakam wants to probe the riot. This means two different things and is clearly aimed at painting a negative picture of what happened — meaning of course negative for BERSIH.

The Sun: Suhakam has initiated a public inquiry into the discharge of firearms.

The Star:Suhakam will hold a public inquiry into allegations about the use of live ammunition.

The Sun says that ‘Suhakam will probe the discharge of firearms’, which means it did happen. The Star says that Suhakam will probe the ‘allegations about the use of live ammunition’, which means it may not have happened at all. The Sun suggests that it did happen so they want to know how and why it happened. The Star suggests that the probe will be about whether it did or did not happen.

The Sun also said:

“This inquiry is solely on the use of firearms on that day and not the assembly itself. Suhakam views the usage of live ammunition at a public assembly with great concern. If there is no justification for the use of live ammunition, then it is a very serious issue. Since we found no court proceedings pending on this issue, we decided on Monday (Nov 12) at the commission’s meeting to pursue it.”

But The Star only said this:

“Suhakam, therefore, found the necessity for a public inquiry to ascertain whether the use of live ammunition by the police during the riot was justified.”

The Sun says that Suhakam is not interested in talking about the assembly but only about the shooting. The Star uses a different quote from that of The Sun and instead gives the impression that Suhakam want to find out whether the use of live ammunition was ‘justified’.

Two newspapers, each saying different things, and both are ‘government-controlled’ news organs mind you — even though Umno has accused The Sun of being too much ‘pro-opposition’. But there is one difference between the two — one, The Sun, is private-owned while the other, The Star, is MCA-owned.

This is not the first time The Star has distorted the news. One day before the 30 October 2007 Conference of Rulers, The Star reported that the Rulers will be discussing the extension of the Chief Justice’s term of office. One day after the Conference of Rulers, Bernama carried an announcement by the Keeper of the Royal Seal that the Rulers did not even touch on the subject. His Majesty, The Agong, a week before that, had rejected the extension of the Chief Justice’s tenure and that was enough for the Rulers. They supported what The Agong had decided and saw no reason for further raising the matter or to discuss it at the Conference.

Anyway, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi refuses to accept defeat. He still wants to get in the last word and show the Rulers who is boss. It appears like Penang may soon get a new Governor in the form of the recently-retired Chief Justice. I did say that the position of Governor is reserved for those who have no other place to go and this assumption will soon be proven beyond any shadow of doubt.

The Star, which is MCA-owned, and therefore can be interpreted as ‘Chinese’ since MCA claims to be the legitimate party representing Chinese interests, has also strengthened something else which I have been saying many times in the past: and that is the Chinese, in particular the MCA Chinese, are Umno’s running dogs.

Yes, the Chinese are very upset. They condemn the present government as the ‘Malay’ government. They accuse the ‘Malays’ of screwing up the country. They refer to the government as ‘Islam-Malays’. But from where I am sitting it looks like it is the MCA Chinese and not the Malays who are Umno’s running dogs.

So, the Chinese are very upset. Yeah, sure they are very upset. They are very upset with the Malays. They are very upset because the Malays are running this country. They are very upset because the Malays are screwing up this country. Then why are they the running dogs of the Umno Malays?

Yeah, sure, I know. They have no choice but to become the running dogs of the Umno Malays. Chinese are a minority. Chinese must think of cari makan first. Chinese must protect their rice bowl. Chinese want to make sure that their business does not suffer so they must become running dogs of the Umno Malays. It’s all about money, money, money. Money comes first. Money calls the shots. M-C-A; Money Controls All.

No problem then. If money is the overriding factor and if money decides what you must do then do it. Be that Umno Malay running dog if you so wish and if that will guarantee you a good and prosperous future. I have no problem with that. But stop blaming the Malays for the ills of this nation. Stop blaming the Malays when this country goes to the dogs. The reason this country is going to the dogs is because you are the running dog, not because of the Malays.

More than a hundred villagers managed to prevent TNB workers to start work on the high tension transmission project. We insisted that all works have to stop before a solution or agreement be reached between the villagers and the Federal and Selangor state governments.After our protest, the TNB officials have no choice but to leave the site.

I must thank the workers for refilling the big hole they have dug earlier to prevent a potential tragedy from happening.

After the protest, the authority now sets a new date for discussion and negotiation with the Rawang Anti High Tension Transmission Project Action Committee and affected landowners on Friday 29 June 2007 @9am at the Selayang Land Office.

Both Chan Kong Choy and Tang See Hang were said to be present on the day. I will be there too as the advisor of the committee.

TV8 also sent its team to cover the event and it was broadcasted over its 8pm Mandarin news a while ago. TV3 was also there to cover the entire event.

Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy, who’s also the MP for Selayang, has been keeping mum until today over the unilateral declaration made by TNB, that the TNB will proceed with the high tension transmission project in Rawang now that the Selangor State Goverment has given them the greenlight not to take an alternative route as agreed by Lim Keng Yaik, Chan Kong Choy and Rawang state assemblyman Tang See Hang last month at Putrajaya.I will be attending a protest cum press conference in Rawang new village on Sunday 24 June 2007 morning (10.30am at the market place) together with M Batumalai (DAP Rawang Rep), Tian Chua and representative from the KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall.

Whe I meet up with the Commercial Crime Department next week, I would demand the police to arrest Liong Sik and other involved suspects!

PKFZ price-tag shoots up to RM4.11 billion

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
Jun 23, 07 6:01pm

Malaysiakini

The price tag for the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) has shot up to an all time high of RM4.11 billion, for which the Port Klang Authority (PKA) has to begin paying for this year by coughing up RM510 million to the seller and developer of the free zone.This was revealed in a May 2006 report of the Auditor-General on PKA for the financial year ended Dec 31, 2005.

Based on various media reports and statements by PKA, malaysiakini had earlier placed the PKFZ price tag at RM2.4 billion: RM1.09 billion to acquire the 405ha of land on Pulau Indah, and at least RM1.3 billion to build it up.

For that amount, eyebrows were already raised in view of the project’s questionable viability. The Selangor Freight Forwarders & Logistics Association described PKFZ as an example of a mega-project into which a lot of money, but not enough thought, was put.

Supplementary agreement

Six months after its completion, PKFZ resembles a ghost town, with only about a dozen tenants instead of the anticipated crush of clients.

A May 2004 report of the Auditor-General revealed, however, the purchase of the land to have been higher at RM1.81 billion (inclusive of 7.5 percent interest) by RM720 million.

The report also said that while the development cost agreed upon in 2003 was RM519 million, this was raised to RM1.3 million following a “supplementary agreement” with the developer, Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd. The increase in development cost was not explained.

The report also said PKA then did not have sufficient financial resources to meet the RM2.9 billion obligation after having already paid an initial RM208.85 million (RM108.85 million for the purchase and RM100 million for the development of the land).

The Auditor-General’s subsequent remark that PKA “informed that the financing of the project will, from the year 2007, be under the 9th Malaysia Plan or through the formation of Malaysia Ports Commission (MPC)” fueled speculations that the derelict project was slated for a major government bailout.

Industry sources, when contacted, described as “scandalous” the use of the proposed MPC – while in principal a sound idea given the need for a central national port authority – to bail out a troubled public authority such as PKA.

The Auditor-General’s May 2006 report on PKA left out any mention of the MPC. He adds, however, that the Authority “is planning to obtain loans from financial institutions with the guarantee of the government of Malaysia as well as requesting grants to finance the project.”

To pay from 2007 to 2017

The Auditor-General also revealed that in 2005, the development cost increased by RM1.21 billion to RM2.51 billion due to “additional development works, professional fees and interest.”

Following the payment that had already been paid by PKA to Kuala Dimensi, the balance of RM4.11 billion shall be paid from 2007 until 2017 with an annual payment ranging from RM130 million to RM733 million, reads the report.

The initial payment for the land and development amounting to RM510 million shall be paid this year.

The Auditor-General also revealed that, as PKA’s liquidity at December 2005 consists of cash in bank and fixed deposits amounting to RM231.75 million and its surplus after tax was RM26.63 million, the Authority “needs to look for sources of financing to meet its capital obligation.”

Commenting on the matter today, Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang said the whole project raises a question mark on the “viability, feasability, and integrity” of the whole project.

During a visit to the PKFZ this morning, the DAP supremo told reporters that the authorities and figures behind the project must explain its state of affairs. This, said Lim, includes the Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy and PKA chairperson Chor Chee Heung.

Both Chan and Chor have to explain how the latter’s appointment in view of Chor’s position as deputy chairperson of Wijaya Baru Global Bhd (WBGB) – which is behind the sale and development of PKFZ.

Lim also invited WBGB chief executive officer Tiong King Sing – who has claimed there is no connection between his company and Kuala Dimensi – to give a full disclosure on the matter.

Malaysiakini had earlier reported Chor as saying the issue of conflict of interest does not arise.

‘There is no connection’

According to records in the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM), Kuala Dimensi is owned by an investment holding and management firm Wijaya Baru Holdings Sdn Bhd (WBHSB).

At the same time, in WBGH’s 2006 annual report, Kuala Dimensi is listed as an “associate company” from which it derived “contract revenue”.

CCM documents show Tiong to be a director and shareholder in both WBGB and WBHSB, but he maintained that “there is no connection” between these companies either.

WBGB, WBHSB, and Kuala Dimensi occupy the same premises at Wisma Wijaya in Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

In September last year, WBGB was actually slapped with a “public reprimand” by Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd for failing to make an announcement to the Exchange in relation to “the disposal of the Pulau Indah Land”.

WBGB had failed to send a circular to its shareholders pertaining to the transaction and obtaining the approval of its shareholders prior to the transaction being completed, said Bursa Malaysia Securities in a statement.

Bursa Securities said, however, that it has not found any of the WBGB directors to have caused or permitted the breach of the Bursa Securities Listing Requirements (LR) and only directed WBGH to “maintain appropriate standards of responsibility and accountability”.

PKA general manager OC Phang – who is also PKFZ managing director – did not respond to requests for comments.

This morning, together with Ronnie Liu, Peter Tan, Tee Boon Hock and other DAP Klang leaders, I visited the multi-billion ringgit Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ), which has been shrouded in such secrecy despite being open to operation more than six months ago on November 1, 2006.

The PKFZ has the forlorn and pathetic air of another failed multi-billion ringgit mega project and Malaysiakini reporters Fauwaz Abdul Aziz and Sabrina Chan are right in coining the term “mega ghost-town” for it.

The PKFZ offers 512 standardised warehouse units, 260 ha of open land and four blocks of eight-storey office complexes. After seven months of opening, there are only signs of two of the 512 warehouse units being taken up but not yet utilized. The only company that has visible presence of operations is the Norwegian oil and gas company Aker Kvaerner. Otherwise, the 1,000-acre PKFZ is an expanse of empty office blocks, warehouse units and land blocks.

There is no vibration of activity or even sense of commercial life!

No wonder the authorities concerned were so upset when they received word that I was going to visit the Westports and a security detail was very rude in demanding to know what I was doing at PKFZ, inviting an earful as to why a visit by the Parliamentary Opposition Leader should be regarded as akin to trespass especially when Parliamentary sanction will have to be sought if there is to be a billion-ringgit bailout of the failed PKFZ.

Many questions swirl around the PKFZ for the past few years without answers, and it is time that the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s pledge to lead an open, accountable and transparent administration be respected by his subordinates, particularly the following personalities:

1. The Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy should explain

• the viability, feasibility and integrity of the PKFZ; and

• why he appointed MCA MP and former Deputy Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung as the new Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairman in April when he should have known that there would be a conflict of interest situation in view of Chor’s position as Deputy Chairman of Wijaya Baru Global Bhd (WBGB), an associated company with Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd., which sold the 1,000 acres of land for the PKFZ at the very inflated price of RM1.8 billion when it was bought for RM95 million and awarded a RM1.3 billion contract to develop the same piece of land.

2. The PKA Chairman Chor Chee Heung should explain whether he would relinquish either the post of PKA Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Wijaya Baru Global Bhd to resolve his conflict-of-interest.

3. The main beneficiary of the PKFZ mega-project, Datuk Tiong King Sing, the MP for Bintulu, should clear the air over the many questions about the mega-project right from the genesis of the project to its present day. Tiong had made a name for himself for demand for transparency and outspokenness against organised crime in Sarawak. He must show he is fully committed to transparency in the PKFZ deal, as he is the main mover of the project being the person behind Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd and Wijaya stable of companies, directly involved in the RM1.8 billion land sale to PKFZ and the RM1.3 billion contract to develop the land.

The PKFZ was touted as modeled after the successful Jebel Ali Free Zone in Dubai, to be the regional export and transshipment hub for manufactured goods. After expenditure of over RM3 billion ringgit, the PKFZ has nothing to show except “the forlorn and pathetic air of a failed mega-project”!

Last month, Chan Kong Choy promised to find an alternative route for the high-tension tranmission towers within a month. This was witnessed by the Rawang 5-men committee, TNB, Tang See Hang and Lim Keng Yaik at Lim’s office in Putrajaya.Why then TNB held a press conference yesterday to unilaterally declared that it would proceed with works without the need to look for an alternative route?

Chan Kong Choy and Tang See Hang must now explain to the Rawang people instead of shying away from his responsibility. Or was there a political tussle between the former Gerakan chief and the MCA leaders over this issue?

I would be going down to Rawang together with our Rawang representative M.Batumalai on Saturday to meet the affected villagers to seek a solution.

Meanwhile, I have advised the residents to get ready with the lawsuit based on public interest in my capacity as their advisor.

I have made a police report with the PJ police on 23 March 2003, asking the police to investigate why Chang Ming Thien Fund was still not launched 23 years after the late Chang Ming Thien has donated RM10 million to the MCA to set up an education foundation to offer scholarship to needy students in this country. I also wanted the police to find out why the interest accrued as reported by Ling Liong Sik was so little after more than 20 years.

The case was transfered to Commercial Crime Department in Bukit Perdana KL and the investigation has started not too long after my report. I was told that Ling Liong Sik was summoned to Bukit Perdana for a good explanation. And nothing has come out of my report until I received a call from Bukit Perdana last week.

I have just got back from Bukit Perdana a while ago. I was given to understand that the CCD has completed its investigation and I would soon be given an official report on the outcome of its investigations.

Just a little background for bloggers who were unfamiliar with the case…

Chang Ming Thien Fund Foundation was only registered on 18 April 1990, that’s 10 years after the late Chang has donated the RM10 million to MCA through Multi-Purpose Holdings Berhad ( as part of the deal when MPHB bought over the UMBC bank from General Holdings).

This, to me, is a gross negligence on the part of MCA. Due to the delay of the establishment of the CMTF Foundation, the money was never passed to the Foundation but left in the coffer of MPHB, a company owned by MCA. In fact, MCA only set up the CMTF Foundation after numerous pressure from the DAP and other concerned citizens. But a good 10 years has gone! And what has happened to the interest accrued from the principal sum of RM10 million?

On 16 Dec 1991, the late family of Chang decided to bring MPHB and MCA to courts for not utilising the fund contributed in 1980 through General Holdings. Can anyone blame the late Chang’s family for doing that?

As a result of the lawsuit, CMTF Foundation put on hold of all its operation. The money was still with MPHB throughout the lawsuit. The case was finally over when the appeal by General Holdings was rejected by the Federal Courts on 18 Nov 2002. The money ( RM 9,820,253.10) was then transfered from MPHB to CMTF Foundation on 20 Dec 2002. Again, what has happened to the interest? And why should MPHB deducted some RM179,747 as solicitor’s fee from the RM10 million contribution?

But sad to point out that Board of Directors under the leadership of MCA top guns still do not bother to activate the fund. Such irresponsible act has prompted me to lodge the police report.

I was also unhappy that the interest accrued as reported by Ling Liong Sik was far short of expectation. What has gone wrong in the MCA under Ling Liong Sik? (In my police report, I attached a 20-years interest rate card issued by the Bank Negara to illustrate my point. Even if the lowest interest rate was used as the basis of calculation, the amount should be much higher than what was reported by Ling in the press! )

About one year after my police report, MCA then only decided to launch the CMTF Foundation. That’s about 25 years late (the RM10 million was donated in 1980)! If the MCA leadership did not screw up “big time”, thousands of needy students could have benefited from the Chang Ming Thien Fund.

The police findings so far has not answered my initial question- why the interest accumulated for the past 20 over years falls short of the expected amount (according to the bank intetrest rates declared by Bank Negara)? If the money was not touched or “frozen”, it should be kept in a bank account to bring in interest. No one would keep the RM10 million in hard cash and lock it in a safe. No?

I will study with my lawyer whether we have a case to initiate a civil case against both the BOD of CMTF Foundation and the leadership of MCA for their negligence and mishandling of the fund. Stay tuned.

Two weeks has passed and Chor Chee Heong is still keeping mum on his conflicting positions in Port Klang Authority (PKA) and Wijaya. He must resign from PKA since he wishes to hold on to his deputy chairmanship in Wijaya Baru Global Bhd, a company owned by Ting King Sing, the current MP of Bintulu. Wijaya and Kuala Dimensi ( all related to Ting) were given the contract to develope the Port Klang Free Zone in Westports, which is within the jurisdiction of PKA.

According to a little bird, Wijaya was formerly known as Pacific Chemicals, a listed company owned by the Ekran’s boss, Ting Pek Khiing. Tiong bought over the ailling Pacific Chemicals from Ting and injected his personal assets (including his 1,000 acres of land in Westports and a few companies) into the company and subsequently changed its name to Wijaya.

If you remember, Ling Hee Leong, the elder son of Tun Ling Liong Sik, once worked in Ekran directly under Ting Pek Khiing. Chor at that time happened to be the Parliamentary Secretary of the Transport Ministry when Ling was the Transport Minister. Do you see the link now?

BTW, Tun Ling is still keeping quite over the questionable PKA/ Westports RM1.81 billion land deal. He must explain why PKA (using taxpayers’ money) bought the 1,000 acres of swampy land in November 2002 at a price very much higher than the market value from Tiong King Sing.

I should be calling the Klang police this week for further actions on my police report made more than a week ago. May be I should also raise the matter with the Securities Commission.

The story on PKFZ is getting ‘hotter’ by the day thanks to the true spirit of investigative journalism of the Malaysiakini team. Please note that Pulau Lumut was the old name of Pulau Indah. And Pulau Lumu Development Cooperative Bhd was earlier referred as “Pulau Indah Malay Fishermen Cooperative”.We are still waiting patiently for Tun Ling Liong Sik, Datuk Seri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Chan Kong Choy, Datuk Yaop Pian Hon, Datuk Chor Chee Heong, Datuk Tiong King Sing, Datuk Rahman Palil to enlighten Malaysian taxpayers on the issue of the questionable lRM1.81 billion land deal.

PKFZ land sale under scrutiny

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz and Sabrina Chan
Jun 14, 07 1:10pm

Malaysiakini

Facts are now emerging that the parcel of land sold to the Port Klang Authority (PKA) for the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) for a hefty RM1.09 billion was originally bought for a much lower price.The land – sold by Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) to PKA in November 2002 – was purchased from a local cooperative at only eight percent of the selling price.

Pulau Lumut Development Cooperative Bhd (PLDCB) had sold half of the 405-hectare land on Pulau Indah to KDSB in the early 1990s for RM30 million, while the remaining half was sold after the 1997 financial crisis at RM65 million.

Revealing this information today, PLDCB secretary Ruslan Akhyar said the 1,400-member cooperative established in 1989 received the land from the Selangor government only “a few years” before it was approached by KDSB with the offer to buy the land.

This means the price of the land – originally farm land and mangrove swamps – went from RM1.37 per square foot (psf) when the first half was sold to RM2.98 psf when the remaining 202.5 hectares were bought over by KDSB.

KDSB would have received the windfall when PKA agreed in 2002 to buy the whole lot to PKA at RM25 psf.

Both Ruslan, who is also Rantau Panjang village chief, and Pulau Indah village chief Mohd Halil Selamat – who confirmed the figures – denied any knowledge pertaining to the transactions conducted subsequent to PLDCB’s disposal of the land.

‘This is business’

They also declined to comment on the tremendous difference between the prices at which the land was bought and sold by KDSB.

“That’s what they call business,” said Halil when contacted.

PLDCB chairperson Abdul Rahman Palil, who is a Selangor state exco member and Sementa state assembly person, declined to comment on the matter.

According to an August 2005 Singapore Business Times report, KPA had paid KDSB a ten percent downpayment of RM108.5 million. The rest will be paid over 10 years beginning this year in instalments of between RM130 million and RM179 million.

While the connection is murky, KDSB has been linked to property developer and investment firm Wijaya Baru Global Bhd’s (WBGB) and is described in WBGH’s 2006 annual report as an “associate company” from which it derived “contract revenue”.

In September last year, WBGB was actually slapped with a “public reprimand” by Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd for failing to make an announcement to the Exchange in relation to “the disposal of the Pulau Indah Land”.

WBGB had failed to send a circular to its shareholders pertaining to the transaction and obtaining the approval of its shareholders prior to the transaction being completed, said Bursa Malaysia Securities in a statement.

Bursa Securities said, however, that it has not found any of the WBGB directors to have caused or permitted the breach of the Bursa Securities Listing Requirements (LR) and only directed WBGH to “maintain appropriate standards of responsibility and accountability”.

Unanswered questions

DAP leader Ronnie Liu, who lodged a police report over PKA’s purchase of the land in 2004, said the information uncovered made it all the more pressing for the authority to investigate the matter.

“It shows there are some questions to be answered,” he said when contacted.

Beside selling the land on which PKFZ is situated, KDSB was also appointed to develop the zone into a regional export and transhipment hub for manufactured goods, modeled after the successful Jebel Ali Free Zone in Dubai.

Six months after its completion and about RM2.4 billion worth of input later, however, PKFZ resembles a ghost town, with only about a dozen tenants scattered about the site instead of the anticipated crush of clients.